Legislative Alternatives to Recall Legislation

Recall legislation is now in committee, but some legislators are interested in addressing official misconduct. Representative Jaret Gibbons, Democrat, serving Beaver County (Part), Butler County (Part), Lawrence County (Part), is reintroducing House Bill 115, Printer’s Number 994, which was introduced during the 2011-2012 legislative session. This legislation created the “Abuse of Public Office Prohibition and Penalty Act” and is intended to fix a flaw in current law. A summary follows excerpted from his web site.

(I do not know the current status of the bill, since I am just beginning research into recall legislation. Perhaps it has already passed.)

From the web site:

In the near future, I plan to reintroduce House Bill 115, Printer’s Number 994, which was introduced during the 2011-2012 legislative session. This legislation created the “Abuse of Public Office Prohibition and Penalty Act” and is intended to fix a flaw in current law.

Currently, Title 18’s Abuse of Office prohibition is concerned with official oppression, speculating or wagering on official action or information, and liability for reimbursement of costs for outside counsel. There is no specific prohibition in Title 18 that makes abuse of office a criminal offense.

Under my proposal, abuse of office would be a criminal offense if an elected official, public officer or public employee would (1) intentionally compel a public employee to perform an activity knowing the activity is not related to the performance of the duties of the office held by the elected official or public officer and (2) intentionally compel a public contractor to provide a good or service for the private pecuniary benefit of the elected official, public officer or another person. A violation would constitute a misdemeanor of the second degree. However, if the aggregate value of the activities, goods or services performed would exceed $2,000, a violation would be a third degree felony. A person who falsely reports an alleged violation would also be subject to criminal prosecution.

I can’t change the postings referring incorrectly to H.B. 1620, John Paul. I would appreciate your deleting them, though, so people are not misdirected. Thanks, and I’ll be more careful about this if any new information arises about H.B. 1680.

I received a phone call back from Jaret Gibbons’ office on Wednesday, 1/22/2014, and nothing more has transpired with the bill. Also, the secretary was personally unfamiliar with it. They put it on a watch list, though, and said they would call again if further action was taken. I plan upon checking it regularly and talking to Gibbons, if possible.